Saturday, July 23, 2011

The NRA Comes to Norway

The events are eerily similar.

In 1995, NRA member Timothy McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City because he was a gunloon who was convinced the Government was going to take away his guns. The motivation behind McVeigh's act of terror was create an uprising against a "tyrannical" Government. Tim McVeigh had a long history with the NRA and gunloonery; in fact, one could say the NRA created Tim McVeigh and was a co-conspirator in the terrorist attack in Oklahoma City. McVeigh's extreme views were shaped by the NRA and militia extremism; the bomb he used came from a design from an NRA bulletin board.

The recent attacks in Norway were fairly identical. The alleged terrorist had ties to right wing extremist groups and militias and believed an attack would create an uprising against a Government he disagreed with.

It can be argued that McVeigh was successful. The NRA created someone who was able to kill over 300 Americans without any damage to itself. In fact, the NRA is able to attack the BATF--McVeigh's primary target without penalty.

Now, what I know about Norway is about as much as Jon Sullivan (Linoge) knows about anything; that is, very little. But I can guarantee an attack of this magnitude will cause Norwegians to demand stricter gun control as a response. Why? Because they understand they have a problem and are willing to work to prevent other such tragedies. Sadly, the US will keep learning the lesson over and over again.

"It can be argued that McVeigh was successful. The NRA created someone who was able to kill over 300 Americans without any damage to itself."

More like 168. But Jadegold has never let a fact get in the way of a good bullshit laden rant.

"But I can guarantee an attack of this magnitude will cause Norwegians to demand stricter gun control as a response. Why? Because they understand they have a problem and are willing to work to prevent other such tragedies. Sadly, the US will keep learning the lesson over and over again."

Why do we keep blaming all of these massacres on guns or any other inanimate object. Guns aren’t evil. People are evil. Long before guns there were plenty of massacres and the murder rate was actually exponentially higher. Once guns came around it became much more difficult for tyrannical governments to subject their populations to abuse. In fact most modern day dictatorships had tight gun control to keep the people under their boot. The quality of living has shot up (no pun intended) since the invention of the modern firearm. Gun laws are worthless to stop these types of crimes. Destroy all of the guns and gun manufactures and you will have people making firearms in their garages and people running around with knives. (England has a much higher rates of knife attacks that the US.) The cat is out of the bag, guns aren’t going anywhere regardless of the laws. Criminals don’t give a crap about laws. If anything in the case of the Norway gunman it was the fake police uniform that did the most harm. That is what allowed him to rack up such a high death toll. But I would be willing to bet that impersonating an officer is already against the law in Norway. You can’t legislate behavior.

Along with all the other regulations we need, mental health screening of some kind is essential. I realize that would put many of our favorite gun bloggers at risk, but take a self-sacrificing cue from Ann Barnhardt.

There is no greater love than to lay down one's guns for the greater good of society.

The more I think about it, the funnier it gets. Gun-rights extremists required to pass a battery of mental health examinations.

Mike: “Along with all the other regulations we need, mental health screening of some kind is essential.”

Are there any reports that he was mentally ill? We throw around terms like “crazy” and “insane” to describe sick people like this, but it sounds like he was of sound mind and not technically mentally ill.

Jade: “But I can guarantee an attack of this magnitude will cause Norwegians to demand stricter gun control as a response.”

You are absolutely right. You don’t need to know anything about the country in question to know unequivocally that the gun control movement will always use tragedies like this to push for further regulations- regardless of how much regulation they currently have.

TS: Actually, Norway has pretty lax gun laws by European standards. For example, one can own fully automatic weapons in Norway.

Moreover, it won't be gun control groups pushing for reforms--it'll be the people. Just like in the UK and Switzerland. You see, many countries in Europe consider it unacceptable when their citizens get murdered. In the US, the NRA considers it ok.

Like I said; “regardless of how much regulation they currently have.” Also, “lax by European standards” is still strict by US standards, and they still have every “sensible” regulation that our groups purport to ONLY be after.

Jade: “Moreover, it won't be gun control groups pushing for reforms--it'll be the people.”

It will be the people who support gun control (like you). Those who oppose gun control will be against it- much like here. The difference is that in Europe you are actually winning, and here you are not.

Wow, the NRA is responsible for 2 mass murders that used bombs to kill innocents. How many people did Tim McVeigh shoot again? What exactly would increased gun control do to prevent all of what happened in Norway again? Right, force the murderer to use more bombs. Excellent point.

How about not leaving a large group of children on an island, unprotected? How about arming your police? How about protecting the citizens of your Country? Your response is to accuse the NRA of responsibility. Your focus is solely on the guns, an innocent American organization & not the individuals responsible for their own actions.

What Norway should do is consider why their laws prevented a quicker armed police response; one that took anywhere from 60 to 90 minutes. Would you find that acceptable here in the US? Answer should be no.

But preventing deaths isn't the purpose behind most people clambering for more gun control, if so they'd be demanding that cars be banned as well. That Flu shots be mandatory. After all, cars or the flu kill more people than guns in the US.

If passing a law & hindering unalienable Constitutional Rights would work, why haven't laws against murder or assault worked so far? Surely it is against the law to kill someone in Norway? Funny how those laws didn't prevent some unhinged murderer from acting out his twisted fantasies, but somehow increased laws will magically prevent further atrocities. Again, excellent point.

Since the laws have no effect on those who’d do innocents harm, wouldn’t they only punish or prohibit lawful citizens? Just be honest, you don't like guns. You obviously could care less about people dying, they're deaths are convenient statistics that you use to re-enforce your desired, inconsistent political views… with your sole purpose of punishing innocent, law-abiding people. People who could have made a difference on that island, at Virginia Tech or Columbine High School.

Your disdain isn’t for the murderer or his actions, nor for McViegh’s; instead you use these actions to attack your opponents & make unrelated comparisons to further a view point that sadly has more in common with both McVeigh & Breivik’s actions: destroy the innocent to make the world reflect how you’d prefer it to be.

PM, the person who used the bombs has also used guns to commit terrorism.

Bombs would have been largely ineffective against the kids spread around the island, compared to bullets. The bomb only killed what, 7? Bullets killed the most people.

You write:"How about not leaving a large group of children on an island, unprotected? How about arming your police? How about protecting the citizens of your Country?"

How about having laws and adequate enforcement of them that creats a society, like Norway's, where groups of children have been safe for years without the need for the protection you describe. Where police are able to function perfectly well without being armed most of the time, and where they have markedly lower crime and violence rates than we do here. And in response to your last line about protecting their citizens, the Norwegians do a damn good job of it; it is not a fair criticism to assert that because one radical right wing-nut did this, that they failed. No one could prevent every possible attack; they do however prevent nearly all of them. This was the exception, not the rule.

I applaud the response from Norway, which I wrote about here (near the end):

http://penigma.blogspot.com/2011/07/glenn-beck-betrays-himself.html

Tens of thousands of Norwegians have rejected the suspect’s anti-immigrant rhetoric, laying thousands of flowers around the capital in mourning. Entire streets were awash in flowers, and Oslo’s florists ran out of roses.Norway’s Crown Prince Haakon and Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere attended a packed memorial Tuesday in the World Islamic Mission mosque in Oslo. After the ceremony, Pakistani-born Imam Najeeb ur Rehman Naz said the massacre had brought Norwegian residents of all backgrounds closer together."Everyone realizes that terrorism and this kind of activity doesn’t have anything to do with any religion," he told the AP. "They are individuals who can be found in any community who don’t represent the majority at all."

I’m not sure how a bomb would have been “infective” if he had employed the same methodology, called the kids in closer to him or the bomb. Perhaps he could have waited to bomb the eating area or where the children slept. Would have killed more, faster.

Funny how the author isn’t calling for the banning of fertilizer - the materials actually used by the killer or McVeigh – or blaming the subversive culture of 4H groups for mass murder. Yet surely there is a more common link there then there is against the NRA.

All one needs to know about how the Norwegian people is that their laws & defensive procedures limited their own law enforcement & actually enabled the killer more time to murder more kids. 60 to 90 minutes.

Can you reasonably argue that “groups of children have been safe for years without the need for the protection you describe” is a true statement now? The fact is they have been lucky up to now & further limiting of weapons will not prevent this from happening again. Guns are not the only weapon available.

Actually I didn’t miss the point, in fact, thanks for making mine. You’re right it doesn’t matter the weapon. So it seems kind of stupid to blame one group & one type of weapons only. I agree. The OP is wrong & misguided in his comparison & basic premise.

What the killer did was already against the law & further gun control will not prevent someone crazy enough from doing it again. However, it will restrict those that do not break the law, desire to kill someone to make a political point or merely wish to be able to defend themselves from attack. Those laws sure help those poor Norwegian children for 60 to 90 minutes.

The NRA wasn’t involved & did not foment any believes. If that’s the case, why has Michael Moore, a proud, lifetime NRA member not resorted to these fomentations?

McVeigh committed his act of terrorism beacuse of guns. The fact he didn't use a gun to kill nearly 200 Americans doesn't matter; he killed because of guns.

One can easily blame the NRA because they're constantly putting out lies and misrepresentations that are incendiary and sedititious. Now, most people aren't going to act on the basis of inflammatory rhetoric--but some are. It's like the abortion issue--if you call people baby killers and murderers long and loud enough, it's only a matter of time before someone gets it into his head that it's not just ok to shoot a doctor--but that it's actually the virtuous thing to do.

I see, so the NRA by supporting & defending the 2nd Amendment drove Tim McVeigh to use a bomb. An act that you claim revolved around guns, though no guns were actually used. Isn’t that's like saying the Beatles were responsible for the Manson Gang's murder of Sharon Tate, because both were involved w/ the White album in some form or another. I guess you miss the point where millions of NRA members, just like the 99.999% of Norwegian gun owners, never resort to blowing up bombs or killing people makes the tiniest minority, basic 1 individual, responsible for their actions.

Basically put, Norwegian gun owners & the NRA are responsible for some whack job secretly planning & performing an insane act of terrorism & murder. So further gun control should be enacted to prevent these groups, in fact all citizens, from owning guns… because it inadvertently leads some to resort to bombing innocents & others to bombing & shooting innocents. I see your point.

Maybe we should hunt down the Sierra Club for influencing the Una Bomber? Of course I must be wrong since the NRA is "…constantly putting out lies and misrepresentations that are incendiary and sedititious…" & like abortionists, who by proxy are seditious liars, kill because they are brain washed into doing so by rhetoric.

I’m not really sure how a voluntary organization based on promoting & protecting Civil Rights, especially the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, is necessarily subversive enough to be considered seditious. Don’t you think the ones actively trying to suppress the 2A, as defined by the author’s of the Constitution & most recently the Supreme Court of the US (see Heller, McDonald), are the ones being seditious? After all they are requiring that Federal Government infringe on the Right to Bear Arms.

PM: You might have a point if Helter Skelter actually said something about killing people. But it didn't--that was all Charles manson's idea.

Similarly, if the Sierra Club was telling folks that its a great idea to send random people bombs --you'd have a point. But they don't.

OTOH, the NRA keeps telling people the Govt is their enemy, that the Govt is going to take away all their rights and guns are the only things standing between them and slavery. It's not a leap to think someone, like McVeigh, who was so invested in guns--might get the idea that lashing out against the Govt with violence is the patriotic thing to do.

It's my belief that proper gun control laws would help diminish gun violence significantly. Those who oppose such regulations for whatever reason must accept their fair share of the responsibility of the results.

It's simple.

You can't work backwards from any single act and ask what would have prevented this particular incident. But you can work forward and say that proper restrictions would prevent some of the misbehavior.

Funny how you accuse me of missing the point, when I just keep repeating the same failed logic the OP & you are using back to you, but changing the persons involved. You claim the NRA is responsible for Tim McVeigh & the pathetic Norwegian murderer. Your proof so far is that because the NRA questions a Federal Government that insists on regulating an area of Civil Rights that the Constitution clearly says they have no right to. The NRA is responding to Governmental over-reach. Whether you agree with the decision or supports the Government’s action is irrelevant. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2A is an individual right. It clearly states that the only permissible regulation is for the militia.

Interesting enough you’ve shown no lies, no calls to violent reaction to the Government by the NRA. You’ve never shown that NRA has demanded that Federal Buildings or children should be targeted. You merely stated that since McVeigh was member, all Members are guilty. Michael Moore is a life-time member as well, is he at fault as well? You ignore that over 99.999% of members don’t commit acts of violence, don’t kill or resort to using bombs. But the NRA is guilty because one person has.

Under the guise of your logic, Martin Luther King & the 60’s Civil Rights Movement were as responsible for acts of violence in the 60’s, since they too claimed that the Government was denying their Constitutional Rights as stated in the Constitution & more specifically Amendments 13 through 15. The Weathermen group supported the Civil Rights movement & bombed government buildings, thus making MLK a bombing murderer. Interesting enough, the same arguments used by the NRA & Alan Gura in McDonald v. Chicago case were the ones used by the Civil Rights groups to demand changes in voter’s rights, property rights & more importantly 2A rights. MLK supported the 2A & owned firearms for self-defense. I haven’t missed the point, the problem is you haven’t made one. You & the author here have stated that membership in the NRA is akin to mass murder & offered nothing but accusations & conjecture.

I don’t mind that you hold differing view-points, don’t want to own fire-arms or defend yourself. More power to you. But the reality is, as the poor children in Norway have learned, the police aren’t always available to protect you. If you wish to ignore your rights to self defense, go ahead. But do not insist that I give up my rights because you’d prefer I didn’t have them or you believe I don’t have the right in the first place. The Supreme Court & the Constitution says I do.

So please provide me a statement that the NRA has made that tells its members to bomb anyone or to take up arms against the Government. Anything short of that, specifically made, shows that you & the OP are lying.

You may suggest or believe all that you want. It doesn’t make you right & quite honestly reality shows that you are wrong. Proper gun control laws have shown to be ineffective.

If laws were so effective in themselves, why did the laws against murder or assault have no effect on McVeigh or the Norwegian murderer?

Why have violent crimes gone down every year in the US, yet gun ownership & concealed carry laws become more prevalent?

Why hasn’t the use of legal, semi-automatic rifles in crime gone through the roof since the Assault Weapons Ban expired?

Hell, the AR15 has become the biggest selling, most popular rifle in the last decade, yet its use in crime hasn’t risen at all. Crime since the AWB expired has fallen overall. The more fire-arm friendly the state, in fact, the lower the crime rates are; the lower the gun crimes are.

Chicago is always around the top of cities with gun violence & up until a couple years ago, no one could legally own a gun. Yet, its one of the deadliest cities to live in.

Your issue is against illegal guns & on that you’re in league w/ the NRA. Don’t bother bringing up the supposed “Gun Show” loophole, because the FBI statics show that most gun crimes involve stolen guns, not one’s purchased at gun-shows. Further more, the BI also states that if the guns were from a gun store & not stolen, they were involved in a straw-purchase, something already illegal. Again, an action not supported by the NRA.

You may believe that I’m responsible, but I cannot see how. Might it be more reasonable to say that you are the more responsible party? After you’re thrusting the blame on everyone but the killers themselves…

Thanks for having me over, please continue to ignore the truth, blame whomever you "feel" "believe" is guilty & most definitely enjoy the next couple of years of court actions. I know I will enjoy even greater freedom in my use of my expanded Civil Rights & firearms.

PMain: As we both know, MLK Jr's campaign was predicated on nonviolence. Even when Southern bigots committed acts of brutality and violence--Dr. King maintained and preched a message on non-violence.

OTOH, the NRA raises a firearm and says "from my cold, dead hands."

MLK jr. realized two things: 1. if his movement were to respond threateningly or with retaliatory violence--he'd lose support and the civil rights cause would be set back decades. 2. He also understood that meaningful change comes from working within the political process. The minute you threaten violence or see those political institutions as your enemy---you've lost.

"If laws were so effective in themselves, why did the laws against murder or assault have no effect on McVeigh or the Norwegian murderer? "

Are you seriously suggesting we have no laws? After all, laws don't guarantee no crime.

The fact is reasonable gun control works. We see it internationally. And we see it in places like NYC.

PMain said, "If laws were so effective in themselves, why did the laws against murder or assault have no effect on McVeigh or the Norwegian murderer?"

I repeat: "You can't work backwards from any single act and ask what would have prevented this particular incident. But you can work forward and say that proper restrictions would prevent some of the misbehavior."

If laws are so ineffective in reducing undesired behavior, and freedom is so important, why are the right wing nut extremists passing or trying to pass so many anti-abortion laws, including those which require misinformation counseling of women?